i've explained previously that liberal is a complicated word. but, i think it makes the most sense to define it relative to it's origins, and in contrast with it's opposite.

i think that this is the most basic definition, and all of the others follow.

conservative: somebody that thinks that human nature is fixed. ex: hobbes, burke.
liberal: somebody that thinks that human nature is malleable, or does not exist at all. ex: rousseau, locke.

this is fundamental, and it derives anarchists and socialists from liberals, as they should be derived. if you argue carefully, you can get to almost every ideological split from this basic breakdown. if you haven't thought about this, try it: you'll no doubt be surprised by how effective it is - because it is historical. it was what conservatives and liberals were at one point explicitly arguing about.

science is not yet clear on this point, but it currently leans very strongly towards no fixed human nature. in the end, the debate will need to return to the answer and move forwards from there. once science has an answer, the people that want bipartisanship will have a model to move forwards with; the synthesis will become truly attainable. or, it will be if they accept the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqwIxaDevsA